Griffin v. Lowe's Companies, Inc. et al

Filing 42

ORDER denying 40 Motion to extend time; denying 40 Motion to Continue Trial. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 5/22/2019. (Smith, Thomas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
JAMES ALTON GRIFFIN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:18-cv-378-Orl-31TBS

LOWE’S HOME CENTERS LLC, LG
SOURCING, INC. and NEXGRILL
INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This products liability case comes before the Court without a hearing on
Defendants’ Motion to Extend Scheduling Deadlines and Continue Trial (Doc. 40).
Plaintiff opposes the motion (Doc. 41).
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in state court on February 9, 2018 (Doc. 2 at 1).
Defendants removed the case to this Court on March 12, 2018 (Doc. 1). The Court
entered its standard Related Case Order and Track Two Notice on March 20, 2018 (Doc.
10). The Order required counsel to meet, confer, and file a case management report
containing suggested dates for the completion of material events (Id.). The parties
complied and proposed, inter alia, the following deadlines:
Disclosure of Expert Reports by Plaintiff

March 6, 2019

Disclosure of Expert Reports by Defendant

April 5, 2019

Discovery Deadline

May 6, 2019

Dispositive Motions

June 4, 2019

Daubert Motions

July 1, 2019

Trial during the term beginning November 4, 2019

(Doc. 25 at 1-2). The Court adopted and incorporated these dates into the Case
Management and Scheduling Order (“CMSO”) governing this case (Doc. 26 at 1-2).
Plaintiff made his expert disclosures on March 6, 2019 (Doc. 41-1). On April 11,
2019, defense counsel requested dates to depose Plaintiff’s experts (Doc. 40 at 3).
Plaintiff’s lawyer responded that the experts were not available for deposition before the
discovery deadline, but that Plaintiff was willing to seek a joint extension of the deadline
so that both parties could take additional depositions (Doc. 40-4 at 6). Defendants
countered that the parties should seek a 90 extension of all deadlines including the trial
date (Id., at 5). The parties were unable to reach agreement, and the pending motion was
filed. Now Plaintiff argues that no extension should be granted or, alternatively, that only
the discovery deadline should be extended, and for no more than 30 days, for the sole
purpose of allowing Defendants to depose Plaintiff’s experts (Doc. 41 at 5).
The parties recognize that the CMSO may only “be modified for good cause and
with the judge’s consent.” FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4). The notes to Rule 16 explain that “the
court may modify the schedule on a showing of good cause if it cannot reasonably be met
despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Advisory Committee Notes to
Rule 16. The Eleventh Circuit has explained that “[t]o establish good cause, the party
seeking the extension must have been diligent.” Romero v. Drummond Co., 552 F.3d
1303, 1319 (11th Cir. 2008).
The CMSO placed the parties on notice that “[m]otions to extend the dispositive
motions deadline or to continue the trial are generally denied,” and that the Court will only
grant an exception “when necessary to prevent manifest injustice.” (Doc. 26 at 4). The
CMSO also informed the parties that motions for extensions of other deadlines are
disfavored and normally denied unless the moving party shows: “1) the motion is joint or

-2-

unopposed; 2) the additional discovery is necessary for specified reasons; 3) all parties
agree that the extension will not affect the dispositive motions deadline and trial date; 4)
all parties agree that any discovery conducted after the dispositive motions date … will not
be available for summary judgment purposes; and 5) no party will use the granting of the
extension in support of a motion to extend another date or deadline.” (Id., at 4-5).
Defendants have not shown diligence because they have not explained why they
waited 36 days after receipt of Plaintiff’s expert disclosures to ask for dates when the
experts could be deposed. They have also not persuaded the Court that manifest
injustice will result if they are forced to cross-examine Plaintiff’s experts or engage in
summary judgment motion practice without the benefit of expert depositions.
Consequently, Defendants’ Motion to Extend Scheduling Deadlines and Continue Trial
(Doc. 40), is DENIED. 1
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 22, 2019.

Copies furnished to Counsel of Record

1

schedule.

This case demonstrates that it is not always wise to agree to such a compact case management

-3-